Asha’irites made God completely powerful and without partners by making Him responsible for creating all human actions. Mu’tazilites, on the other hand, declared God to be free from any (role in) compulsion and oppression by allocating complete empowerment to the human beings. The truth is that both these judgments were against God’s splendour.

The Asha’irites point of view made God an offender and oppressor. People become wronged and oppressed, which would be totally vile and against God’s Majesty. However, according to the Mu’tazilites’ concept, the Probable become independent of the Essential, thereby making God redundant.

This was why in many Ahadith the Qadriyya’s (those who believed in full empowerment of man) were strongly condemned. According to one tradition of the Prophet almost seventy Prophets of God had cursed the Qadriyyas.

It had been mentioned in Sherhe Maqasid that a man from Iran came to meet the Prophet. The Prophet (S) asked him, what was the strangest thing that he had seen in his own land? He replied that he had seen a nation (Magian’s) that married their mothers, sisters and daughters and when questioned about their behaviour they replied that God had preordained this for them.

After listening to him, the Prophet (S) said that a group would surface amongst his own Ummah, who would issue the same statement. They would be the Magians of his Ummah. There have been various traditions of this type in both Shi’a and Sunni sources, the irony being that both Asha’irites and Mu’tazilites considered each other the focal point of the above quoted tradition. The fact remained that both these sects were under the umbrella of Qadriyya. However, those who believe in compulsion were more of its target.

Allama Al-Majlisi said, “You would realise that both of the sects were wayward, and whatever they said about each other was lucid, as the reality was against both views, and the correct view was a balance in between the two concepts.”

Our Imams have presented this view in the following words, “In religion (for human functions), there is neither compulsion nor empowerment, but the truth is in the middle.”

In other words, man is neither under total compulsion nor completely free. There is a balance between these two extremes. This was such a wonderful philosophy that even some of the Asha’iri scholars were also convinced of its validity. Allama Fakhruddin Razi, wrote at the end of his long discussion on compulsion and empowerment that the reality of this concept was with those guardians of faith, who said that man was neither under total compulsion nor completely free, but his function lies between these two extremes.

The significant point for our understanding would be the nature of this middle point. Several statements have been available on this issue. We have quoted a few below.

Shaykh Al-Mufid said: “Jabr (compulsion) in religion is a mode that coerces a man to do or not to do something, in a manner that his own capability of action is withdrawn completely. His desire and resolve have no bearing on it; whereas, tafweez (empowerment) is the exclusion of coercion and restrictions in humans’ actions. They are completely free to do whatever they desire as the atheists and polytheists say.

The bridge between these two ideas was that God had given humans an ability to distinguish between good and bad, and then defined the limits of their freedom. A regime of punishment and reward as a result of their behaviour had also been introduced with respect to their limitations. The granting of this freedom did not mean that they were under any duress nor did it let them go free in absolute sense. This was what was meant by the middle position.”

The statement by Mullah Muhammad Amin Asterabadi, which he adopted in some of his books, described the meaning of the middle route as a path where man was not an absolute sovereign who could do anything, but his every word and action rested on God’s prevalent attitude at that time, which was related to non-interference (takhliya) or intrusion (mana) i.e. it was up to Him whether to intervene or to leave him alone (to make his own choice).

It was reported through many Ahadith that the effect of various medicines and magic depended upon takhliya i.e. on the permission of God. People’s acts were conducted along the same pattern. The occurrence of every incidental act was related to God’s permission in a manner just as an effect was related to certain conditions for its embodiment. This remained a good reasoning but its drawback was that it was not very credible.

It was related from Imam Ar-Ridha (‘a) that anyone who said that God was the creator and propagator of their actions, and then He punished them, was an advocate of Jabr. To say that God had transferred powers of creation and provisions of sustenance to Imams, was to believe in tafweez. The adherent of jabr would be an infidel (kafir), while that of tafweez would be a mushrik.

The narrator then asked Imam about the middle route. He replied, one should conform to all those acts, which were permissible, and refrain from those that had been prohibited, and for which God had provided the necessary strength. This was a middle route.

The aspirant then asked him about God’s will and resolve in these matters. He replied that interference with God’s will and desire meant performing those acts for which non-conformity with His instructions or non-compliance was needed while He had provided humans with the necessary tools to act accordingly.

The narrator then asked that if God’s will and desire had any role to play in this situation? He replied that the meanings of interference of His will and desire in those acts, that were permissible was that He ordered them to perform and aided them in their act of obedience, while they were in agreement with it. So far as sins and evil deeds were concerned, interference of His wish and resolve meant that He withdrew support when vile acts were performed.

The narrator asked, if destiny had any role to play in it? Imam replied that whatever people deserved due to their performance, was accordingly awarded in both worlds.

According to this school of thought, the view of jabr is the same that had been discussed above. For tafweez it had been said that man would have to be so steadfast and rigid in his act that even God would not be able to prevent Him from carrying it out.

And, about the middle route they argued that though God had made man independent in his actions, He is Omnipotent, and could withdraw this power from him, if He so desired. He could prevent him from doing that act, and could make him do, what he did not want to do. However, due to logical reasons, He does not behave like that.

Allama Al-Majlisi and Sayyid Abdullah Shabbar in Bihar Al-Anwar and Masabih al-Anwar respectively, had adopted this point of view. This view wis also congruent with the statements of our Imams, and it is easily acceptable to a logical mind.

The essence of this view is that it negates that kind of jabr, which is not in line with the Qur’anic text and the Prophetic traditions, but was propagated by the gruesome doctrine of the Asha’irites faith. It opposes tafweez, which had been proposed by Mu’tazilites. The middle route that was suggested, is to be achieved through God’s guidance and His blessings, and accompanies all the virtuous deeds that are performed by the human beings, but it does not attain the level of compulsion.

Similarly, the view proposed a (divine) capacity to intervene and prevent disobedience and sins, but not to the level of compulsion and coercion. It is such an ecstatic problem that every human, would feel its presence within himself, under differing conditions.

Allama had explained this by giving an example. He said that a master could ask his servant to perform a job after providing him with full instructions as to how to carry out that task. He could also promise him some reward on successful completion of the task, and warn him of the penalty - in case of failure and disobedience.

Now, if he somehow found out that the servant would not abide by the instructions, and even if he did not elaborate or facilitate him further, in case of disobedience, in the event the servant was punished then no right-minded person would question his action or accuse him of deliberately coercing the servant to disobey him, or let him be lax in letting him do whatever he wanted to do.

In the above example, if the master further aided the servant, by appointing another person to remind him of his instructions, and the servant wilfully stuck to the orders given to him, then no right-minded person could accuse the master that he had forced obedience and compliance on the servant. The commentator had provided another example to elucidate the problem, but it was merely a repetition of the first example.